http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FJ30Aa01.html
"Look in his eyes, it's all lies"
-----------------------------------
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskind03/susskind_index.html
"The kind of answer that this or that is true because if it were
not true there would be nobody to ask the question is called the
anthropic principle." (Susskind)
Is this now 'the same' as when Heidegger says that to Being
belongs man?
It is insofar 'the same', as the objective passion of physics
- itself a metaphysical passion - cannot get lose from 'world',
universe and physis, for instance by being after their unified formule.
They remain words, which in their current meaninglessness, cannnot
stop asking for meaning. Still for Nietzsche: the meaning for life.
But 'life' ITSELF has become since an exclusive scientific notion,
that is: scientific object, of which then *again* might be asked what
it is good for, maybe for another life form than our impotent one.
But *for what or who*, remains the question.
And Dasein is only the name, the realm of the question.
The more the onesidedness is carried through, the more urgent becomes
this sphere.
Not Heidegger leads us to it, science does! It cannot destroy its origin.
Origin is, as H tells often, not just the push of a billiardball.
Arche means: ground in which what grows was and *remains* grounded.
If science strives to uncouple itself from its feeding ground, it must die.
--But who is really the dying party?
(see, it keeps on coming back)
rene
"do you still don't see?"
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
"Look in his eyes, it's all lies"
-----------------------------------
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskind03/susskind_index.html
"The kind of answer that this or that is true because if it were
not true there would be nobody to ask the question is called the
anthropic principle." (Susskind)
Is this now 'the same' as when Heidegger says that to Being
belongs man?
It is insofar 'the same', as the objective passion of physics
- itself a metaphysical passion - cannot get lose from 'world',
universe and physis, for instance by being after their unified formule.
They remain words, which in their current meaninglessness, cannnot
stop asking for meaning. Still for Nietzsche: the meaning for life.
But 'life' ITSELF has become since an exclusive scientific notion,
that is: scientific object, of which then *again* might be asked what
it is good for, maybe for another life form than our impotent one.
But *for what or who*, remains the question.
And Dasein is only the name, the realm of the question.
The more the onesidedness is carried through, the more urgent becomes
this sphere.
Not Heidegger leads us to it, science does! It cannot destroy its origin.
Origin is, as H tells often, not just the push of a billiardball.
Arche means: ground in which what grows was and *remains* grounded.
If science strives to uncouple itself from its feeding ground, it must die.
--But who is really the dying party?
(see, it keeps on coming back)
rene
"do you still don't see?"
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---